Twyman, J. (2016). Wave Speed Calculation For Water Hammer Analysis.
Obras y Proyectos 20, 86-92
Wave speed calculation for water hammer analysis
Cálculo de la velocidad de onda para el análisis del golpe de ariete
John Twyman
Twyman Ingenieros Consultores, Pasaje Dos # 362, Rancagua, Chile, john@twyman.cl
In order to accurately solve the water hammer problem
using the Method of the Characteristics MOC is
necessary to fulfil with the so−called Courant condition
which establishes mandatorily that Cn = f(a) = 1 in each
pipeline of the system, where a is the wave speed. The value
of Cn is dependant of a whose value depends in turn on
the fluid properties (density, bulk modulus) and physical
characteristics of each pipeline (elasticity modulus,
diameter, wall thickness, supporting condition). Because
water distribution systems usually has many different
pipes, and therefore, many different wave speeds, it can
be said that fulfil with Cn = 1 in each pipeline is a very
difficult task, more when the solution by MOC needs a
common time step Δt for all pipe sections of the system. A
way of solution to this problem is applying the method of
the wave−speed adjustment that involves modifying the
value of a in each pipe section in a certain percentage up
to obtain Cn = 1. With this procedure optimum results are
guaranteed in numerical terms, but it is possible to say
the same in physical terms? The question which arises is:
what parameters within the formula of a must (or can) be
changed without exceeding the characteristic values of
the component material of the pipes?. This work shows
that in some cases the wave speed modification can
significantly alter the value of the parameters that define
a, leading to values that can be physically inconsistent,
fictitious or without practical application.
Keywords: wave speed, water hammer, Courant number
Introduction
For many years the Method of the Characteristics MOC has
been used for solving the transient flow in pipe networks
due to its numerical efficiency, computational accuracy,
and programming simplicity. However, one difficulty that
arises is the selection of an appropriate time step Δt to use
for the analysis. The challenge of selecting a time step is
made difficult in pipeline systems because to calculate head
86
Fecha de entrega: 13 de mayo 2016
Fecha de aceptación: 7 de noviembre 2016
Para resolver en forma precisa el problema de golpe de ariete
usando el Método de las Características MC es necesario que
el número de Courant Cn = 1 en cada tubería del sistema. El
valor de Cn depende de la velocidad de la onda a, cuyo valor
depende a su vez de las propiedades del fluido (densidad,
módulo de compresión) y de las características físicas de cada
tubería (módulo de elasticidad, diámetro, espesor, condición
de apoyo). Debido a que las redes de distribución de agua
generalmente tienen muchas tuberías diferentes, y por tanto,
muchas velocidades de onda distintas, cumplir con Cn = 1 en
cada tubería se torna una tarea muy difícil, más aún cuando
la solución mediante el MC necesita un paso de tiempo Δt
común para todas las tuberías del sistema. Una forma de
solución a este problema es aplicar el método de ajuste de
la velocidad de la onda que consiste en modificar el valor de
a en cada tubería en un cierto porcentaje hasta obtener Cn=
1. Con esto se garantizan resultados óptimos en términos
numéricos, pero ¿es posible decir lo mismo en términos
físicos?. La pregunta que se plantea es: ¿qué parámetros
dentro de la fórmula de a deben (o pueden) ser cambiados sin
exceder los valores característicos del material componente
de la tubería?. En este trabajo se muestran algunos casos
donde la modificación de a puede alterar significativamente
la magnitud de los parámetros que definen su valor, dando
lugar a valores que pueden ser físicamente incompatibles,
ficticios o sin aplicación práctica.
Palabras clave: velocidad de la onda, golpe de ariete,
número de Courant
and discharge in many boundary conditions it is necessary
that the time step be common to all pipes. Besides, MOC
requires that the ratio of the distance step Δx to the time
step Δt be equal to the wave speed a in each pipe, or
that the Courant number Cn = a Δt/Δx should ideally be
equal to one. For most pipeline systems it is impossible to
satisfy exactly the Courant requirement with a reasonable
(and common) Δt because they have a variety of different
Twyman, J. (2016). Obras y Proyectos 20, 86-92
pipes with a range of wave speeds and lengths (Karney
and Ghidaoui, 1997). There are two strategies to deal with
this problem. The first strategy is apply the method of the
wave-speed adjustment MWSA where one of the pipeline
properties is altered (usually wave speed) to satisfy
exactly the Courant condition. The second strategy is
interpolating between known grid points allowing Courant
numbers less than one. At first glance the MWSA appears
simpler because is non-dissipative and non-dispersive and
in theory only consists in modify the value of the wave
speed in a certain percentage to meet Cn = 1. Nevertheless,
this procedure distorts the physical characteristics of the
problem (Ghidaoui and Karney, 1994). In other words,
changing a involves altering, in physical terms, the
value of one or more of the parameters that are part of its
formulation such as fluid density or the elastic modulus
of the constituent element of the pipe. More clearly, the
modification of a in numerical terms involves altering
the initial physical conditions of the system, leading to a
solution that may be correct in numerical terms (to meet
Cn), but incorrect in physical terms because the problem is
solved using parameters with unreal magnitudes.
Governing equations of transient flow
When analyzing a volume control it is possible to obtain a
set of non-linear partial differential equations of hyperbolic
type valid for describing the one-dimensional 1D transient
flow in pipes with circular cross-section (Chaudhry and
Hussaini, 1985):
where the partial differential equations (1) and (2)
correspond to the continuity and momentum (dynamics),
respectively. Besides, H is the piezometric head, a is the
wave speed, c = (gA/a), where g is the acceleration of
gravity, A is the pipe cross-section, Q is the fluid flow and
R = f/2DA, f is the friction factor (Darcy-Weisbach) and D
is the inner pipe diameter. The subscripts x and t denote
space and time dimensions, respectively. Partial differential
equations (1) and (2), in conjunction with the equations
related with the boundary conditions of specific devices,
describe the phenomenon of wave propagation for a water
hammer event.
Wave speed
For water, without presence of free air or gas, the more
general equation to calculate the water hammer wave speed
magnitude in one-dimensional flows is (Watters, 1984):
with a the wave speed, K the volumetric compressibility
modulus of the liquid, ρ the liquid density, e the pipe wall
thickness, E the pipe elasticity modulus (Young); ψ a
factor related with the pipe supporting condition which can
be calculated from general expressions (see Table 1) being
the case 2 more conservative from an engineering point of
view. Equation (3) supposes that:
• Pipe has a thin internal wall, condition which is met
when D/e > 40 (Watters, 1984) or when D/e > 25
(Wylie and Streeter, 1978).
• Pipe remains full of water during the transient event;
that is, no separation of the water column is generated,
which means that at all times the pressure is greater
than the vapour pressure.
• Water has small air content, so that the magnitude of
the wave speed may be assumed constant.
• The pressure is uniform across any section of the pipe.
It means that inertial forces associated with radial
motion of the fluid are negligible (Skalak, 1955).
Equation (3) includes Poisson’s ratio effect but neglects
the motion and inertia of the pipe. This is acceptable for
rigidly anchored pipe systems such as buried pipes or
pipes with high density and stiffness, to name only a few.
Examples include major transmission pipelines like water
distribution systems, natural gas lines and pressurized and
surcharged sewerage force mains. However, the motion
and inertia of pipes can become important when pipes
are inadequately restrained (unsupported, free-hanging
pipes) or when the density and stiffness of the pipe is small
(Ghidaoui et al., 2005).
87
Twyman, J. (2016). Wave Speed Calculation For Water Hammer Analysis.
Obras y Proyectos 20, 86-92
Table 1: Expressions for ψ according to the pipe supporting
condition (Watters, 1984; Pierre, 2009)
Case Pipe supporting condition
Pipe anchored at the upstream end only
1 where Cn is the Courant number, Δt is the time step and Δx
Ψ = [1 / (1 + e/D)] [5/4 – u + 2(e/D) (1+u) (1 + e/D)]
Pipe anchored against any axial movement
2 (when Cn < 1) or numerical instability (when Cn > 1).
Ψ = [1 / (1 + e/D)] [1 – u2 + 2(e/D) (1 + u) (1 + e/D)]
Case 2 plus longitudinal expansion joints along the
pipeline
3 a certain amount of care in its selection. It is quickly
Ψ = [1 / (1 + e/D)] [1 + 2(e/D) (1 + u) (1 + e/D)]
Method of the characteristics
The Method of the Characteristics MOC is an Eulerian
numerical scheme (Wood et al., 2005) very used for solving
the equations which governing the transient flow because
it works with a constant and, unlike other methodologies
based on finite difference or finite element, it can easily
model wave fronts generated by very fast transient flows.
MOC works converting the computational space x − time t
grid (or rectangular mesh) in accordance with the Courant
condition. It is useful for modelling the wave propagation
phenomena in water distribution systems due to its facility
for introducing the hydraulic behaviour of different devices
and boundary conditions (valves, pumps, reservoirs, etc.).
Among its main advantages it can be highlighted its ease
of use, speed and explicit nature, which allows calculate
the variables Q and H directly from previously known
values (Chaudhry, 1979; Wylie and Streeter, 1978). The
main disadvantage of the MOC is that it must fulfil with
the Courant stability criterion that can limit the magnitude
of the time step ∆t common for the entire network. In order
to get Cn = 1, some pipe initial properties can be modified
(length and/or wave speed). Another way is to keep the
initial conditions and apply numerical interpolations
with risk of generating errors (numerical dissipation and
88
dispersion) in the solution (Goldberg and Wylie, 1983).
The MOC stability criterion states that (Watters, 1984):
is the sub−section pipe length (Δx = L/N with L the pipe
length and N the number of pipe sub−sections). In general,
MOC gives exact numerical results when Cn = 1, otherwise,
it generates erroneous results in the way of attenuations
Sectioning for piping systems: method of
wave-speed adjustment
In piping systems Δt must equal for all pipes. This involves
realized that (4) probably cannot be exactly fulfilled in
most systems. Inasmuch as the wave speed is probably not
known with great accuracy, it may be permissible to adjust
it slightly, so that integer N may be found. In equation form
this can be expressed as (Wylie and Streeter, 1978):
in which Øj is a permissible variation in the wave speed in
pipe j, always less than some maximum limit of say 0.15 or
15% (Wylie and Streeter, 1978). In general, a slight
modification in wave speed is more preferable than any
alteration in pipe length to satisfy the requirement of a
common time step size.
Numerical interpolation
When MOC is applied with Cn < 1 some numerical
interpolation must be applied in order to obtain Q and H for
every pipe inner section. When the interpolation is applied
on the x axis, some analytical expressions can be obtained
for the state variables Q and H at interior nodes using
numerical schemes with different interpolation orders. The
most common numerical interpolation methods include
linear interpolation at a fixed time level, including both space
line interpolation and reach−out in space interpolation,
as well as interpolation at a fixed location, such as time
line interpolation or reach−back in time interpolation
(Karney and Ghidaoui, 1997). There is a tendency among
Twyman, J. (2016). Obras y Proyectos 20, 86-92

practitioners to think of interpolation as a numerical device = 1000 kg/m3. The Young’s elasticity modulus E is the
with only numerical side effects. In general, all common relationship between the force increment and the unitary
interpolation procedures result in numerical dissipation strain (Martínez and Azuaga, 1997). E has the same value
and dispersion, and they considerably distort the original for a tension or compression, being a constant as long as
governing equations. The interpolation procedures the force does not exceed a maximum value called elastic
effectively change the wave speed (Ghidaoui and Karney, limit (Hooke’s law). The formula for calculating the
1994). In summary, interpolation fundamentally changes elasticity modulus is:
the physical problem and must be viewed as a nontrivial
transformation of the governing equations. Because this
topic is beyond the scope of this paper, more information
will not be included here. In the following paragraphs, the where E is the modulus of elasticity, F is the force, A0 is the
main parameters of the wave speed in (3) will be briefly surface (area) where the force is applied, ΔL is the length
analyzed, showing their characteristic values. variation and L0 is the initial length. Typical values of E for
some materials are shown in Table 2.
Compressibility is the property of a fluid to change its
volume due to the pressure (Del Valle, 2010). For problems Table 2: Typical values for E (Larock et al., 2000)
involving the effect of water hammer is necessary to Material E, Pa
take into account the compressibility of water, which is Steel 2.077 ∙ 1011
inversely proportional to its bulk modulus of elasticity and Copper 1.1 ∙ 1011
is defined mathematically as: Bronze 1.0 ∙ 1011
Asbestos cement 2.3 ∙ 1010
Fiberglass reinforced 9.0 ∙ 109
PVC 2.8 ∙ 109
Polyethylene 8.0 ∙ 108
where v is the specific volume and P is pressure. The bulk
modulus of elasticity K is:
When a sample of material is stretched in one direction it
tends to get thinner in the other two directions (Figure 1).
The Poisson’s ratio is the ratio of the relative contraction
strain (or transverse strain) normal to the applied load. It
The equation (7) represents the relative change in a fluid can be expressed as:
volume per unit of applied pressure. The negative sign is
because as the pressure increases, the volume decreases
and vice versa. The ε units are the same for pressure. At a
temperature of 20°C and atmospheric pressure (1 bar) the where u is the Poisson’s ratio, εt is the transverse strain and
bulk modulus of water is K = 2.07 ∙ 109 Pa. The density of εL is the longitudinal or axial strain. Strain can be expressed
water is the weight of the water per its unit volume: as:

with ρ the density, m the fluid mass and V the fluid volume.
The fluid density is function of pressure and temperature
(especially in gases), it increases with increasing pressure
and it decreases with major temperature. At atmospheric
pressure and temperature of 4°C the water density is ρ
where dL is the change in length and L is the initial length.
For isotropic materials the Poisson’s ratio is in the range of
0 to 0.5 (Greaves et al., 2011). Table 3 shows some typical
values of u.

89
Twyman, J. (2016). Wave Speed Calculation For Water Hammer Analysis.
Obras y Proyectos 20, 86-92

schemes different than MOC as those posed by Twyman et

al. (1997), which are more stable and accurate when Cn <
1 and that do not require to modify the wave speed in order
to get a more accurate solution.

Figure 1: Contraction strain normal to the applied load

Table 3: Typical values for Poisson’s ratio (Larock et al., 2000)
Material u Material
Steel 0.30 Fiberglass reinforced plastic
Copper 0.36 PVC
Bronze 0.34 Polyethylene
Asbestos cement 0.30
Example of application
It is considered a simple system composed by a reservoir
(upstream end), a steel pipeline of length L = 4800 m
carrying water without presence of free air or gas, and a
valve (downstream end). The pipe is anchored against any
axial movement (Figure 2). The temperature is 4°C. To
calculate a0 we take into account the following values: K =
2.07 GPa, ρ = 1000 kg/m3, E = 207.7 GPa, D = 0.3 m, e =
0.00755 m, ψ = 0.9531 (see Table 1, case 2). Substituting
these values in (3) it is obtained a0 = 1225 m/s.
Figure 2: Pipe example sketch
Assuming that pipe network was discretized using Δt =
0.3725 s and N = 10, according to (4) we have: Cn = a0Δt/
Δx = 1225 ∙ 0.3725 / (4800 / 10) = 0.95065. Because Cn < 1
and the application of the numerical interpolation is not an
option, it will be necessary to modify the a0 value in order
to get Cn = 1.
Wave−speed adjustment
Because of the previous assumptions, in order to obtain
Cn = 1, a0 value must be incremented slightly up to 5%,
u
that means up to a1 = 1289 m/s. Now, the question is what
0.22
values should adopt parameters u or E in (3) to justify
0.45
the value of a1, under the scenario that they are the only
0.46
parameters which can be modified?. For example, to obtain
a1 = 1289 m/s, Poisson’s ratio u must be incremented up
to 0.660 (ceteris paribus), see Figure 3. This value for u
corresponds to an unknown material and it is out of range
because it is greater than 0.5, the isotropic upper limit
(Greaves et al., 2011). On the other hand, to obtain a1 =
1289 m/s, the elasticity modulus E must be incremented up
to 3.12 ∙ 103 GPa (ceteris paribus), see Figure 4. This value
for E also is out of range because it belongs to a material
that cannot be efficiently used in the manufacture of pipes
for water distribution systems.
Discussion
Figures 3 and 4 show that to allow the variation of a in
5% (and get Cn = 1), u and E must take unrealistic values
that are outside the normal range of physical constituent
material of pipes. For example in Figure 3, given the range
of extreme values of u between fiberglass reinforced plastic
with u = 0.22 and polyethylene with u = 0.46, the non−
numeric physical variation range of a should be between
−0.5 and +1.7%, corresponding to a range of variation of
u between −25 and 55% of its original value, respectively.

Assumptions
In order to obtain Cn = 1, the following assumptions will be
taken account: i) it is not possible to modify Δt, L and N;
ii) water parameters such as density ρ or bulk modulus K
are known and unalterable; iii) there are not availability of
Figure 3: Variation of wave speed versus Poisson’s ratio

90
Twyman, J. (2016). Obras y Proyectos 20, 86-92

+15% recommended by Wylie and Streeter (1978) is only

referential, that is, it shows the maximum range of values
to take in case of need to modify the a values, taking care
to apply an arbitrary percentage change without checking
the numerical aspects and physical constraints that are
behind (4) and (5).

Conclusion
The MWSA distorts the physical characteristics of the water
hammer problem. Due to this, it is recommendable that in
Figure 4: Variation of wave speed versus modulus of elasticity the process of discretization (Δx, Δt) of the pipe network,
(k/ms2 = Pa)
necessary to solve the water hammer in pipe networks by
MOC, before deciding to apply the MWSA to obtain Cn = 1,
Even though, in the analyzed example u should vary 120%
the analyst must see if the final values adopted to calculate
to get a value of 0.66 (out of range) for a = 1289 m/s and
a are consistent and appropriate, both in numerical and
therefore Cn = 1. Figure 4 shows that +5% variation of
physical terms. Otherwise it would solve a very different
the wave speed to obtain Cn = 1 implies to increase the
problem originally raised with implications for all stages
value of elasticity modulus up to E = 3120 GPa, which
of design or verification of the system. Before changing
corresponds to a variation of 50% of its initial value, being
the value of a, it is important to check the implications
out of range because the existence of a material more rigid
of changing its magnitude. At this point, it is important to
than steel and equally efficient and useful as a constituent
know what parameters of its formulation are known and
element of a pipe is unknown. Another interesting point
can be considered as unalterable (pipe length, diameter or
from Figure 4 is that the allowed variation of a falls
wall thickness) and check what of the other parameters can
between 0 and −11%, which only allow incorporate pipes
be modified by analyzing its variation range and level of
of copper (E = 1100 GPa) or bronze (E = 10000 GPa) into
reality.
the model because their rigidity. That is, by including less
rigid pipes into the model (PVC for example, with E = 2.8
GPa), the variation of a would stay outside the allowable
References
Chaudhry, M.H. (1979). Applied hydraulic transients. Van
range ±15% recommended by authors such as Wylie and
Nostrand Reinhold, New York
Streeter (1978). The modification of u or E values leads to
Cn = 1, assuring the optimum results in numerical terms. Chaudhry M.H. and Hussaini M.Y. (1985). Second–order
Nevertheless, in this case the application of the method accurate explicit finite–difference schemes for waterhammer
of wave−speed adjustment had a cost in physical terms analysis. Journal of Fluid Engineering 107(4), 523 - 529
because Cn = 1 was obtained from parameters (E or u) Del Valle, V. (2010). Fluidos. Apuntes editorial Universidad
out of range. In general, analysts tend to forget such cost Tecnológica Nacional, Tucumán, Argentina
because the MWSA has been recommended in the pipeline
Ghidaoui M.S. and Karney B.W. (1994). Equivalent differential
literature (Karney and Ghidaoui, 1997), without giving
equations in fixed−grid characteristics method. Journal of
further details about its physical limitations. Finally,
Hydraulic Engineering 120 (10), 1159 - 1175
another point is that physical limitations of the (4) and
(5) show up to where it is possible modify a in order to Ghidaoui, M.S., Zhao, M., McInnis, D.A. and Axworthy, D.H.
avoid an out of range value. For example, in the case (2005). A review of water hammer theory and practice. Applied
of u (Figure 3), the range of permitted variation of a is Mechanics Review 58(1), 49 - 76
very restricted, between −1 and +1%. For the case of E
Goldberg, D.E. and Wylie, E.B. (1983). Characteristics method
(Figure 4) such range varies between 0 and −10%. This
using time–line interpolations. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering
means that the range of variation of a between −15 and
109(5), 670 - 683

91
Twyman, J. (2016). Wave Speed Calculation For Water Hammer Analysis.
Obras y Proyectos 20, 86-92
Greaves, G.N., Greer, A.L., Lakes, R.S. and Rouxel, T. (2011).
Poisson’s ratio and modern materials. Nature Materials 10(11),
823-837
Karney B.W. and Ghidaoui M.S. (1997). Flexible discretization
algorithm for fixed–grid MOC in pipelines. Journal of Hydraulic
Engineering 123 (11), 1004 - 1011
Larock, B.E., Jeppson, R.W. and Watters, G.Z. (2000). Hydraulics
of pipeline systems. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida, USA
Martínez, P. y Azuaga, M. (1997). Medición del módulo de
elasticidad de Young. Apuntes laboratorio IV, Departamento de
Física, UBA
Pierre, B. (2009). Pressure waves in pipelines and impulse
pumping: physical principles, model development and numerical
simulation. Doctoral thesis, Norwegian University of Science
and Technology, Trondheim
92
Skalak, R. (1955). An extension of the theory of water hammer.
Tech. Report No. 15, Columbia University
Twyman, J., Twyman, C. y Salgado, R. (1997). Optimización
del método de las características para el análisis del golpe de
ariete en redes de tuberías. XIII Congreso Chileno de Ingeniería
Hidráulica, Universidad de Santiago de Chile, 53 - 62
Watters, G.Z. (1984). Analysis and control of unsteady flow in
pipelines. 2nd edition, Butterworth−Heinemann, USA
Wood, D.J., Lingireddy, S., Boulos, P.F., Karney, B.W. and
McPherson, D.L. (2005). Numerical methods for modeling
transient flow in distribution systems. Journal of the American
Water Works Association 97 (7), 104 - 115
Wylie, E.B. and Streeter, V.L. (1978). Fluid transients. McGraw–
Hill, USA